Tag Archives: taxes

SALT Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Short, brief, sweet, and redundant.

One thing threatening serious tax reform—which is to say making permanent the tax rate reductions that otherwise expire near the end of this year, reducing those rates further, and flattening the rates further—is the kerfuffle over the SALT (State And Local Tax) tax deduction cap, currently at $10,000.

I sympathize with the Representatives and Senators, especially the Republican ones, in those States most impacted by the cap. Their wealthier constituents want the cap raised significantly if not eliminated. These politicians, though, must understand that as members of our national Congress, their responsibilities to our nation as a whole runs a very close second to their responsibilities to those individual constituencies.

The business of cap raising/eliminating is nonsense for a couple of reasons. One is that there is no reason at all for the rest of us taxpayers to subsidize those in States with profligate spending and already high taxes. Those Congressmen would do better using their Federal influence and bully pulpit to convince their State and local governments to mend their spendthrift ways and lower their tax rates—the latter which several States (tellingly, mostly Republican led) already have done or are doing.

The other reason is that, aside from empirical evidence that lowering tax rates actually increases revenues to the Federal government from the increased private economic activity that results from more money being left in the hands of us private citizens, revenue reductions—if any—from lowered tax rates is easily covered by reduced spending in general and reduced, if not eliminated, subsidies and tax credits for “green” energy solar and windmill farms, battery cars, federal deductions for non-federal tax collections, and other such tax engineering froo-froo.

Indeed, with sufficiently reduced spending, badly needed increased spending on national defense still could occur.

Raising the SALT tax cap wouldn’t be tax reform, it would be tax deform. In fact, reform here would be eliminating the SALT deduction altogether.

A Flat Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media, and Stephen Moore, a Heritage Foundation economist, proposed last Monday.

Collapsing the personal-income and corporate tax rates to 15% would have huge economic benefits. America would suddenly have one of the lowest tax rates in the world, resulting in trillions of dollars of new capital flow and a spike in take-home pay.

And this:

The simplicity of a flat tax would reduce the deadweight costs associated with tax compliance—and the headaches. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs calculates that Americans spent almost eight billion hours filling out tax forms in 2024.

Using a naïve estimate of 97.2 million households (and even more naively assuming all households pay taxes, which provides an upper bound on the number of households relevant here), that works out to over 80 hours per household—two working weeks—of tax compliance labor.

This, too:

The Tax Foundation estimates that this cost the economy $413 billion in lost productivity, and the Internal Revenue Service estimates that we spent $133 billion on out-of-pocket compliance costs.

That’s $4,250 per year in lost productivity for each household, with an added $1,370 per year per household of unreimbursed spending just to comply with current tax law. Most households could find other uses for those $5,620.

Still, I don’t think Forbes and Moore go far enough.

I’d add getting rid of the corporate income tax altogether. Business’ customers pay the bulk of those taxes, anyway, rather than the taxed business; for the taxed business, the tax is just another cost center to be covered proximately through product/service pricing and indirectly through reduced spending on innovation, expansion, hiring, and raises.

Forbes and Moore suggest getting rid of some deductions, but I’d go farther here, too. Get rid of all deductions, subsidies, and credits, too, and tax all income from all sources as ordinary income. Let businesses make their expansion and financing decisions based on purely business and market criteria instead of having to game the tax implications of borrowing or stock issuances. Individuals also would go back to making their spending and investing decisions based on what’s good for their individual/family situations instead of having to game a byzantine tax system in the course of their decisions.

And those optimal decisions would include how to use those $5,620.

“Pay Their Fair Share”

Posted on by
Reply

Once again, I challenge all those Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, including but not limited to (in no particular order), Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA); soon-to-be-ex-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY); former Senator (DE), Vice President, and soon-to-be-former President Joe Biden; former Senator (CA) and soon-to-be-former Vice President Kamala Harris (D); Senator Martin Heinrich (NM); and Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (NM) to identify, specifically, what is the fair share of income taxes that the rich should pay—hard dollar amount, or tax rate, or percent of income, or…. Cynically, all they’re willing to say is their feelz: pay up and pay more; it’s not “fair,” otherwise.

Here, though, in concrete terms, is the situation with that especially evil bunch of Americans, those in the top 1% of income-tax filers:

  • 22.4% of the country’s total reported earnings
  • share of income taxes paid 40.4%
  • average federal tax rate of 26.1%

Here is what the smaller people pay in the way of income taxes:

  • • bottom 10%: no taxes
  • second income decile: -4.8%–yes, negative, due to all the refundable tax credits they get
  • third income decile: 2.8%

Back to the top:

  • top decile—which includes those 1%-ers: 27%
  • especially evil top 0.1% earners: 33.5%

This graph shows the trend from 2001 to 2022:

Of course, those Party politicians know all of this; they being so much smarter than us poor, ignorant average Americans, and all. It’s a measure of their dishonesty and of their contempt for us that they foist their cynical class divisiveness on us. It’s also an indication of what their natural limit and purpose on taxing is: their limit is all of it from their definition of rich, who aren’t all that numerous; their purpose is to give it to enough of the rest of us to buy enough votes to stay in power.

It hasn’t worked yet, but the rest of us need to remain vigilant and active, lest the outcome of last month’s elections become just a one-off bump in Party’s march. A warning of that is given by the outcome in the House of Representatives elections, where not enough Progressive-Democrats were tossed.

Another Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

Some tax cuts are better than others goes the headline, and that’s true enough. But then the newswriter wanders afield.

…extending the lower individual tax rates that expire after 2025—by far the largest component of any likely tax bill and the one that directly affects the most voters—would put more money in consumers’ pockets without driving a meaningful change in the economy’s long-run trajectory. There is broad bipartisan support for retaining those lower tax levels that Republicans created in 2017, but keeping individual tax rates in place is unlikely to change most people’s decisions about whether and how much to work.

It’s certainly true that not all tax cuts would change, or have any effect, on us taxpayers’ spending behavior. So what? Those favoring higher taxes have yet to articulate a coherent government need for the money, beyond expansive welfare payments and expansive welfare transfers to the States—all without any sort of work requirement.

At bottom, too, it’s our money, not government’s, and we should be the ones who decide how to spend it, or not. Nor do the taxers and government bureaucrats and politicians get to tell us how or whether to spend our money—not directly (that’s part of the intrusiveness of Obamacare that has yet to be corrected), and not indirectly by taxing us and spending our money in government’s name. We’ll allocate our money to our financial needs and desires far more efficiently and with far more specificity than government can ever be capable of.

Full stop.

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

This one is, surprisingly, on the part of The Wall Street Journal‘s editors. In an otherwise cogent editorial with several sound points regarding former President and Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s offers of specially targeted tax cuts, the editors closed with this mistake:

Mr Trump is now proposing to narrow the base, so [tax] rates will have to be higher.

Not at all. Alternatively, and far more optimally, with a narrower tax base, spending will have to be lower. That’s universal, too. With reduced (tax) revenues for any reason, spending would need to be lower. With current government spending, in fact, even with flat revenues, spending badly wants reduction.

It seems the august editors have lost sight of the cause of our nation’s deficits and debt, the cause extant throughout our history.